Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care · 2025
What is the value of anthropometry for estimating muscle mass?
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Duarte Camila Kümmel, Silva Luciana de Abreu
Аннотация
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Skeletal muscle mass is essential for mobility, physical performance, and disease prevention, serving as a predictor of morbidity and mortality, particularly in sarcopenia. Muscle mass decreases with age and is associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Accurate assessment is crucial in clinical practice but presents challenges.
RECENT FINDINGS: Imaging methods like MRI, DXA, computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, and other techniques like bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) are effective but have limitations such as cost, accessibility, and operator dependency. Anthropometric measures - such as calf circumference, mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), forearm, and thigh circumference - are simple, low-cost alternatives that correlate well with muscle mass, though they can be influenced by factors like age, sex, and body fat. Adjusted measures using skinfold thickness improve accuracy but are less reliable in older adults. Prediction equations based on anthropometry can estimate total muscle mass but must be validated for specific populations. In complex cases like obesity or malnutrition, equations that incorporate biochemical markers or dynamometry may enhance precision.
SUMMARY: Overall, selecting the appropriate muscle mass assessment method requires consideration of population characteristics, available resources, and proper professional training to ensure accurate and clinically useful results.
RECENT FINDINGS: Imaging methods like MRI, DXA, computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, and other techniques like bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) are effective but have limitations such as cost, accessibility, and operator dependency. Anthropometric measures - such as calf circumference, mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), forearm, and thigh circumference - are simple, low-cost alternatives that correlate well with muscle mass, though they can be influenced by factors like age, sex, and body fat. Adjusted measures using skinfold thickness improve accuracy but are less reliable in older adults. Prediction equations based on anthropometry can estimate total muscle mass but must be validated for specific populations. In complex cases like obesity or malnutrition, equations that incorporate biochemical markers or dynamometry may enhance precision.
SUMMARY: Overall, selecting the appropriate muscle mass assessment method requires consideration of population characteristics, available resources, and proper professional training to ensure accurate and clinically useful results.